Economists See Deficit Emphasis as Impeding Recovery

Status
Not open for further replies.

entremet

Member
Full Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/u...-economists-as-impeding-recovery.html?hp&_r=0

Oh no shit?

After seeing examples in Europe and Japan and I can't believe these dunderheads in Washington went down this route.

Excerpt

WASHINGTON — The nation’s unemployment rate would probably be nearly a point lower, roughly 6.5 percent, and economic growth almost two points higher this year if Washington had not cut spending and raised taxes as it has since 2011, according to private-sector and government economists.

After two years in which President Obama and Republicans in Congress have fought to a draw over their clashing approaches to job creation and budget deficits, the consensus about the result is clear: Immediate deficit reduction is a drag on full economic recovery.

Hardly a day goes by when either government analysts or the macroeconomists and financial forecasters who advise investors and businesses do not report on the latest signs of economic growth — in housing, consumer spending, business investment. And then they add that things would be better but for the fiscal policy out of Washington. Tax increases and especially spending cuts, these critics say, take money from an economy that still needs some stimulus now, and is getting it only through the expansionary monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.

“Fiscal tightening is hurting,” Ian Shepherdson, chief economist of Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors, wrote to clients recently. The investment bank Jefferies wrote of “ongoing fiscal mismanagement” in its midyear report on Tuesday, and noted that while the recovery and expansion would be four years old next month, reduced government spending “has detracted from growth in five of past seven quarters.”

That period roughly coincides with the time that Mr. Obama and Congressional Republicans have shared governance since Republicans took control of the House in 2011, promising an immediate $100 billion in spending cuts. Republicans did not get that much then, but the series of budget compromises with the president since — while not so great as they wanted — will soon reduce annual discretionary spending for domestic and military programs to the lowest level in half a century.

As for revenues, Mr. Obama forced Republicans to acquiesce in January to higher taxes from wealthy Americans. But worse, in the macroeconomists’ view, both parties agreed not to extend a two-year-old cut in Americans’ payroll taxes for Social Security, reducing their spending money.

In all this time, the president has fought unsuccessfully to combine deficit reduction, including spending cuts and tax increases, with spending increases and targeted tax cuts for job-creation initiatives in areas like infrastructure, manufacturing, research and education. That is a formula closer to what the economists propose. But Republicans have insisted on spending cuts alone and smaller government as the key to economic growth.

The results, Mr. Obama has taken to saying, despite his complicity, are “self-inflicted wounds.”
 
The rise in payroll taxes is absolutely moronic, but it is more dangerous to find an scapegoat in the sequester, versus admitting that the monetary policy of the Fed since 2008 has been an utter disaster, that has only benefitted the top 10% of the country.
 
There are certainly economists who would disagree. This doesn't appear to be robust; it sort of vaguely says "economists agree" without specifically citing what percentage of economists agree or how many economists were sampled.

Yes, some economists agree, and I'm sure they could find hundreds who do. But how many hundreds would disagree? As a reasonable example, consider that there are hundreds of professional biologists who would argue that Evolution isn't real. The question you should then ask is: what percentage of the overall scientific community do these scientists represent? The answer is somewhere around 2-4% of working, professional biologists. 96-98% consensus is about as close as any scientific theory will ever reasonably get to absolutes.

I am not saying that the example in this topic is like evolution denial, I am only pointing out how tenuous this argument can be. Talking to a few economists who think that fiscal tightening is a bad idea and then concluding, "see? SEE?" is not itself sufficient.
 
There are certainly economists who would disagree. This doesn't appear to be robust; it sort of vaguely says "economists agree" without specifically citing what percentage of economists agree or how many economists were sampled.

Yes, some economists agree, and I'm sure they could find hundreds who do. But how many hundreds would disagree? As a reasonable example, consider that there are hundreds of professional biologists who would argue that Evolution isn't real. The question you should then ask is: what percentage of the overall scientific community do these scientists represent? The answer is somewhere around 2-4% of working, professional biologists. 96-98% consensus is about as close as any scientific theory will ever reasonably get to absolutes.

I am not saying that the example in this topic is like evolution denial, I am only pointing out how tenuous this argument can be. Talking to a few economists who think that fiscal tightening is a bad idea and then concluding, "see? SEE?" is not itself sufficient.

This is like saying we need a bigger sample size to say the sky is blue.
 
This is like saying we need a bigger sample size to say the sky is blue.

It really isn't. Economics is not nearly that simple and straightforward. As a student myself, I feel the field is full of people who are absolutely sure they're right even though the field doesn't have a lot of empirical underpinnings.
 
The rise in payroll taxes is absolutely moronic, but it is more dangerous to find an scapegoat in the sequester, versus admitting that the monetary policy of the Fed since 2008 has been an utter disaster, that has only benefitted the top 10% of the country.
the problem is that federal policy isn't following monetary policy ie pushing up demand, so you get the effect of only benefiting the few wealthy.
 
The rise in payroll taxes is absolutely moronic, but it is more dangerous to find an scapegoat in the sequester, versus admitting that the monetary policy of the Fed since 2008 has been an utter disaster, that has only benefitted the top 10% of the country.

Should the Fed have raised interest rates?
 
Sadly that school of thought went out with monetarism and Neo Liberlism. A certain amount of unemployment is preferable due to the inflationary effect. See Friedman.
Which makes me glad that Krugman and Co is leading the charge against the Chicago school.
 
This is like saying we need a bigger sample size to say the sky is blue.

If it's as obvious as saying the sky is blue, then the article in the OP would be as irrelevant as one that says "Physicists say sky is blue", and would not be required to be published at all. Not only is there disagreement that the sky is blue, but there is a large number of powerful people with an impact on policy-making who do not believe that the sky is blue.
 
It really isn't. Economics is not nearly that simple and straightforward.

It's not like this is the first time where it has shown that fiscal tightening affects economic growth, Its happened throughout history... Saying it's not enough of a sample size is throwing out a century of empirical evidence. There certainly is an entire school of economics that happily will tell you evidence is overrated, but then your just giving equal time for the sake of equal time

I saw your edit and thosedeafmutes, I think we are saying the same thing, I'm just being more obtuse about it
 
It's not like this is the first time where it has shown that fiscal tightening affects economic growth, Its happened throughout history... Saying it's not enough of a sample size is throwing out a century of empirical evidence. There certainly is an entire school of economics that happily will tell you evidence is overrated, but then your just giving equal time for the sake of equal time

I saw your edit and thosedeafmutes, I think we are saying the same thing, I'm just being more obtuse about it

The empirical evidence we have is not controlled and could readily be interpreted differently by rational individuals.

That is to say, lots and lots and lots of other variables were at play during (for example) the Great Depression, so drawing confident, "it's obvious" conclusions from that mess of data is not prudent.

I personally think it's probable that fiscal tightening is a bad idea. I'm just saying it's not obvious. Economics suffers from many problems, but a lack of complexity is not one of those problems. It is so complex, in fact, that we should be cautious of drawing any "obvious" conclusions. There is no "blue sky" in economics.
 
I'm definitely an outsider on the topic and I understand that there are many factors that could play into a scenario but isn't generally "less money = bad"? There is no shortage of people saying less money in the system in the private sector is bad so why does less money in the public sector into the economy make it different?
 
The empirical evidence we have is not controlled and could readily be interpreted differently by rational individuals.

That is to say, lots and lots and lots of other variables were at play during (for example) the Great Depression, so drawing confident, "it's obvious" conclusions from that mess of data is not prudent.

I personally think it's probable that fiscal tightening is a bad idea. I'm just saying it's not obvious. Economics suffers from many problems, but a lack of complexity is not one of those problems. It is so complex, in fact, that we should be cautious of drawing any "obvious" conclusions. There is no "blue sky" in economics.

There are some obvious conclusions you can draw though...

General Equilibrium is hardly a proper forecaster of outcomes, but consider, for example:
Say GDP(Y) is $1 trillion, and within that the Government Sector (G) is $300b.
If the government sector shrinks to $280b due to fiscal policy, suddenly there is $20b less in the economy and ceteris paribus, GDP falls.

Yeah, that is a very simplified abstraction. Some of that fall can be recovered by the private sector. And a lot of that $20b is financed through taxation, which was money already existing. But like all models, it is based on real observation. If the government slashes 2000 jobs in fiscal tightening, you have 2000 very real unemployed people. If the government cancels an infrastructure project that would give 1000 people work, there will be 1000 less employed people in the economy.

The only way to get out of a recession is through growth, and all policy that is an effort to defeat the recession should be seen through these lens. Political philosophy and ideals can wait - it's time for some pragmatism.
 
Should the Fed have raised interest rates?

They should not have been recklessly pumping money into the economy, which has to be put somewhere (not in the real economy of course), causing a vicious cycle of rising financial asset prices that they can't "orderly" escape from, causing everyone to have to seek riskier and riskier investments to earn a dime.

Nowhere in there is a consideration for real wage growth, only a glimmer of hope that people will assume more debt and consume more (since the stock market is doing oh so well).
 
They should not have been recklessly pumping money into the economy, which has to be put somewhere (not in the real economy of course), causing a vicious cycle of rising financial asset prices that they can't "orderly" escape from, causing everyone to have to seek riskier and riskier investments to earn a dime.

Nowhere in there is a consideration for real wage growth, only a glimmer of hope that people will assume more debt and consume more (since the stock market is doing oh so well).

By pumping money into the economy, do you mean keeping rates low, quantitative easing, or something else? The fed's tools are kind of limited. I don't see what they can really do about wage growth.
 
Focus on deficits and QE and keeping interest rates low is great for pumping up the value of rich peoples' portfolios. For everyone else, not so much. This is why they have been doing this instead of stuff that would actually help most people.
 
The Neoliberal takeover of the economic profession beginning in the 70s lead to absolute charlatan's proposing ideas based on magic fairy dust reasoning.
 
Regardless of what specific crazy thing you believe about this situation, it's nice to see the Times breaking away from the Washington consensus that deficits are the problem. Let's hope it percolates through the rest of the media and we can stop talking about deficits forever and start talking about social programs that we desperately need.
 
I personally think it's probable that fiscal tightening is a bad idea. I'm just saying it's not obvious. Economics suffers from many problems, but a lack of complexity is not one of those problems. It is so complex, in fact, that we should be cautious of drawing any "obvious" conclusions. There is no "blue sky" in economics.

You never know when that blue sky you're pointing at will turn out to be an Excel formula error. :P
 
You never know when that blue sky you're pointing at will turn out to be an Excel formula error. :P

How anyone could believe in that paper to begin with when they refused to even present their data was a total disgrace.
 
The Neoliberal takeover of the economic profession beginning in the 70s lead to absolute charlatan's proposing ideas based on magic fairy dust reasoning.



Bullshit.


The profession has gone in the opposite direction than what you say. Even Chicago is COMPLETELY different than what it was 30 years ago.

Hell, Mechanism Design came from Myerson, who is at Chicago, and has as its fundamental underpinnings the inefficient results of asymmetric information in a micro setting, which since then the literature has carried through to Macro. That is fundamentally non-"Neoliberal", as people tend to use the term.
Some of the biggest researchers in Chicago work in experiments and applied Micro. A couple of dinosaurs do not a "takeover" make.
 
The rise in payroll taxes is absolutely moronic,

Are you referring to the expiration of the payroll tax holiday?

Or do you mean the increasing emphasis on using a separate type of tax with its own set of rules and a regressive bracketology to fund some of the most essential social safety nets we have?
 
By pumping money into the economy, do you mean keeping rates low, quantitative easing, or something else? The fed's tools are kind of limited. I don't see what they can really do about wage growth.

I mean QE. Rates low at this point are also a function of the Fed buying up every other treasury bond out there, with a little help from the Japanese as there is a flight to safety. I agree with you that the Fed tools were limited from adjusting the interest rates, but they took it upon themselves to buy toxic assets and inflate financial assets hoping for the "Wealth Effect" to work.

You are also correct in that they can't do anything about wage growth, and yet they have chosen their mandate to be a 6.5% unemployment rate. At this pace, we'll get enough people to drop out of the labor force (and go on disability) for the Fed to proclaim "Mission Accomplished".

Are you referring to the expiration of the payroll tax holiday?

Or do you mean the increasing emphasis on using a separate type of tax with its own set of rules and a regressive bracketology to fund some of the most essential social safety nets we have?

The expiration of the holiday. I'm all for protecting our social safety nets. I'm even more for us becoming a nation of savers, in spite of wallstreet always pushing for higher growth and profits.
 
Economy is a fringe science. Not to say that the insight of the economist are worthless, but is far from being a science.
 
How anyone could believe in that paper to begin with when they refused to even present their data was a total disgrace.

Because it fit their agenda. Same reason people watch Fox. They want their ideals reinforced.


The paper was already weak (it was published in the AER P&P, which is an outlet for short, non-peer-reviewed, "quick ideas" type of journal), it was simply "believed" by some because it fit their agenda.

It reported a correlation, nothing more -- and even the correlation wasn't there at the end of the day.
 
Bullshit.


The profession has gone in the opposite direction than what you say. Even Chicago is COMPLETELY different than what it was 30 years ago.

Hell, Mechanism Design came from Myerson, who is at Chicago, and has as its fundamental underpinnings the inefficient results of asymmetric information in a micro setting, which since then the literature has carried through to Macro. That is fundamentally non-"Neoliberal", as people tend to use the term.

The IMF is a neoliberal institution. The World Bank is a neoliberal institution. Most economists in financial services err towards that point of view, anything else is not tolerated.

The academic foliage around free-market thinking has total grip on policy decisions in the West. So much so that there is almost total consensus across all major political parties in most countries.

Any change in the profession now is totally fleeting, the damage done 30yrs ago has not been reversed. Cherry-picking one or two examples of the evolution of the horrendous cunts at Chicago is missing the entire picture.
 
There are certainly economists who would disagree. This doesn't appear to be robust; it sort of vaguely says "economists agree" without specifically citing what percentage of economists agree or how many economists were sampled.

Yes, some economists agree, and I'm sure they could find hundreds who do. But how many hundreds would disagree? As a reasonable example, consider that there are hundreds of professional biologists who would argue that Evolution isn't real. The question you should then ask is: what percentage of the overall scientific community do these scientists represent? The answer is somewhere around 2-4% of working, professional biologists. 96-98% consensus is about as close as any scientific theory will ever reasonably get to absolutes.

I am not saying that the example in this topic is like evolution denial, I am only pointing out how tenuous this argument can be. Talking to a few economists who think that fiscal tightening is a bad idea and then concluding, "see? SEE?" is not itself sufficient.

^ This happens in just about every economic argument.

And what's funny to note is that of all the professions out there, economists are the most stubborn I've ever encountered. When was the last time you heard of an economist say they changed their mind about something relating to their profession? People of all sorts of professions (law, politics, the sciences, even artists reflecting on their artistic philosophy) look upon their profession and update their principles time to time. Economics? Nope. Every single bad thing that happens is the fault of the policies they don't agree with. Every single good thing that happens is to the credit of the policies they do agree with. Politicians do this to some extent but once in a while a politician comes around and changes his/her mind. Not economists, though. Stubborn til the day they die.
 
The IMF is a neoliberal institution. The World Bank is a neoliberal institution. Most economists in financial services err towards that point of view, anything else is not tolerated.

The academic foliage around free-market thinking has total grip on policy decisions in the West. So much so that there is almost total consensus across all major political parties in most countries.

Any change in the profession now is totally fleeting, the damage done 30yrs ago has not been reversed. Cherry-picking one or two examples of the evolution of the horrendous cunts at Chicago is missing the entire picture.

There is no academic foliage around free-market thinking, that is a myth.

I'm not cherry picking at all, on the contrary.
Read any, ANY top 10 Economics journal of the past 20 years. What kind of papers do you see?
 
That is complete bullshit, I'm afraid.

Ask Google and Microsoft what they think of Auction Theory.

Ah, game theory derivatives. Perhaps I should say that most, specially the ones dealing with macro economics. Is problematic that (some) economist have sold their trade and theories as something as solid as, lets say, particle physics (which also relies heavily on statistics models), when is faaar form it.
 
It really isn't. Economics is not nearly that simple and straightforward. As a student myself, I feel the field is full of people who are absolutely sure they're right even though the field doesn't have a lot of empirical underpinnings.
Unfortunately this is correct. There are many who will find evidence to support what they want to believe, rather than basing their beliefs on the evidence available.
 
There are certainly economists who would disagree.

Then I wouldn't call them economists. Maybe frauds? There is a very simple equation at work here. It looks like this, where G is government spending:

GDP = C + I + G + (X – M)

This isn't a controversial equation. If G goes up, GDP goes up. If G goes down, GDP goes down. That is because when the government spends money domestically, it immediately becomes somebody's income. Any economist who claims that reducing government spending does not slow economic growth is a crank.

If it's as obvious as saying the sky is blue, then the article in the OP would be as irrelevant as one that says "Physicists say sky is blue", and would not be required to be published at all. Not only is there disagreement that the sky is blue, but there is a large number of powerful people with an impact on policy-making who do not believe that the sky is blue.

Such an article is not as irrelevant as one that says "Physicists say sky is blue" only because there is so much FUD surrounding the issue. Government's role in the economy has implications for very powerful individuals within it (also known as the ruling class). They have a strong interest in creating and dispersing FUD. But, as far as basic facts go, such an article ought to be as irrelevant as one that says "Physicists say sky is blue."
 
Full economic recovery is a bad thing for the super wealthy. Didn't they get even wealthier through the recession? You can't have a feudal society unless the masses are poor and desperate.
 
Then I wouldn't call them economists. Maybe frauds? There is a very simple equation at work here. It looks like this, where G is government spending:

GDP = C + I + G + (X – M)

This isn't a controversial equation. If G goes up, GDP goes up. If G goes down, GDP goes down. That is because when the government spends money domestically, it immediately becomes somebody's income. Any economist who claims that reducing government spending does not slow economic growth is a crank.

Without considering the money supply here. The crowding out effect is also well established.
 
I would argue that it has an component of "self fulfilling prophecy".

I would too, particularly in current times. I'm only pointing out that economics has a lots of moving variables that make confident, clear conclusions difficult.
 
Then I wouldn't call them economists. Maybe frauds? There is a very simple equation at work here. It looks like this, where G is government spending:

GDP = C + I + G + (X – M)

This isn't a controversial equation. If G goes up, GDP goes up. If G goes down, GDP goes down. That is because when the government spends money domestically, it immediately becomes somebody's income. Any economist who claims that reducing government spending does not slow economic growth is a crank.

Your argument is on the level of "if we make drugs illegal, there won't be any drugs".
 
Full economic recovery is a bad thing for the super wealthy. Didn't they get even wealthier through the recession? You can't have a feudal society unless the masses are poor and desperate.

From a social perspective, an economy that is optimized to maximize production is ideal. From an individual perspective, nobody has a self-interest in maximizing economic production. What the individual wants to maximize is his or her relative power. Maximizing relative power might require--and I would argue does require--opposition to optimizing an economy for maximum production. When an economy is optimized, it will create circumstances that will force owners and executives to share more of the society's wealth with those who actually produce it (i.e., people who work for a living). And this is what is opposed by an economic elite that is always trying to put the brakes on economic optimization.

Without considering the money supply here. The crowding out effect is also well established.

I am not sure what you mean by without considering the money supply. It's true that the equation presumes price stability. Inflation is extremely low (and almost always is in a developed economy like the US, and when it hasn't been, it's been because of supply shocks to things like oil).

Can you articulate your understanding of the crowding out effect for me?

I would too, particularly in current times. I'm only pointing out that economics has a lots of moving variables that make confident, clear conclusions difficult.

I would argue that many of those variables are, in fact, just FUD.

See, e.g.: http://modernmoney.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/the-myth-of-crowding-out/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom